My greatest fear as a pensioner living in the (apparently ungovernable) State of New York is that the more we debate the subject of How To Improve K-12 Education in the USA the more we will find (a) that only root and ranch reform will produce the kind of results the discussion will show we need, and (b) that such reform is impossible to bring about. Fifty years of the kind of hold US television has on almost the entire population has created a cultural shift which will not be reversed. We refer so often to "1984" as the future we feared the most but "Brave New World" says much more about the future we have made for ourselves in the years since it was written.

I've always been skeptical of the length and expense entailed in teacher training. OK, there are class control issues where advice is probably necessary before throwing in at the deep end, but this should take one or two weeks to train. On the whole, though, I suspect an energetic, intelligent person who has real joy and understanding of their subject is a far more valuable teacher than someone who is happy jumping through ridiculous hoops for a year or two.

I am biased though. I thought about becoming a teacher and met the people who would have been teaching me how to be a teacher. It was dismaying that after lecturing at an Ivy League University, I was still expected to go through a year's training at £9000 for the year. Much as I'd love to teach children the joys of maths and physics, I would rather poke pins in my eyes than go through that rigmarole and be lectured to by a surprisingly stereotypical bunch of people who seem much keener to instill half-baked philosophies based on political correctness and a myth of equal attributes, than generating interest and desire to think and learn.

I had horrible, horrible teachers except two, one was an art teacher and another literature teacher. My science and math teachers made me hate the subjects and i am forever "thankful" to them for killing my desire or abilities to learn above mentioned subjects. I wish more people realized that childs abilities are only half of the story, the other half are good teachers.

We know that everyone who wants a graduate in a school where teachers are destined for their important task the lifetime especially on areas like 'problems in maths teaching'and the like the significance is of VIP level understanding.In democratic machinations people's rights and the SUPPLY SIDE has got to be highly intricate and full of wise prospects whereas we lacked then.Solving for clear ends lies somehow in getting down to the degree of understanding and the levels they're at no matter how low or how high...As an individual nation we got to react giving more time to the life saving subject in all its intricacies.Stay in peace blessings and plenty.

Having captured district leadership positions in several cities, and having created two charter school networks, Wendy Kopp's Teach For America friends are pursuing an approach to school reform based on the false premise that teachers are the cause of sub-par academic performance in urban schools, They not only discount major factors like the degree of parent commitment, family stability, student habits and economic inequality, they underestimate the power these obstacles exert in the daily experience of urban schools.

D.C. Superintendent Michelle Rhee's school reform recipe includes three ingredients: close schools rather than improve them; fire teachers rather than inspire them; and sprinkle on a lot of media-thrilling hype. Appearing on the cover of Time, she sternly hovered over the camera holding a broom, which she was using to sweep trash, the trash being a metaphor for my urban teacher colleagues. MS RHEE, MY COLLEAGUES WHO WORK IN SOME OF THE TOUGHEST SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT TRASH.

TFA teachers are a welcome addition to our nation's public schools, and TFA and its offspring, the KIPP and YES charter schools, provide valuable services, but no data exists proving they are closing the achievement gap, or that they have a formula to close the gap, for the majority of low-income students. KIPP/YES teachers do great work, but they have students whose families apply to schools with longer school days, Saturday classes, an extra month of school in the Summer, and nightly loads of homework. Only a small minority of working-class families will allow schools to take over their kids' lives that much.

The TFA coalition implies poor schools and bad teachers create the achievement gap. They want the community to give them power because only they can bring“reform” by eliminating job security and diminishing teacher influence over policy. This anti-teacher attitude derives from Ms. Kopp's original vision when she decided, from her Princeton perch and without a day in the classroom, that inexperience was better for teachers than experience. They are launching an Ivy League class war on veteran teachers from our nation's toughest schools.

While one can applaud the idealism of the teachers, I wonder about results. The article is devoid of analysis about the results of these inexperienced teachers. If their results are so impressive then why have lengthy and expensive teacher credentialing requirements?

As a former American teacher with professional experiences and educational degrees from stellar international universities, I wonder about their superiors. My administrators reprimanded me for speaking the "Nazi language" in class (because no place in the world still speaks German), mentioning the political philosophies of Thomas Jefferson (because he was an "idiot"), and teaching that July 4th 1776 was a declaration of independence from Britain (for the parents that complained, administration preferred that I teach that Mexico broke free from the USA on "Cinco de Mayo". How do these educated graduates deal with the ignorance and political correctness of their bosses who usually have degrees in unrelated subjects?

This teacher currently lectures at a Chinese University where there is, ironically, less political correctness in education. That is not to say much about China, but rather the lack of relevance student learning and results have in American education.

It's odd how the economist likes to write about education quite alot. Perhaps it's the huge sums of money spent on it that attracts the attention. I wonder how many experienced former teachers you have on your writing staff?

Your perfunctory article on the TFA project was disappointing for the paucity of any analytical commentry. It barely touches upon the deep-rooted malaise plaguing the education system, not just in New York, but the US generally, for decades.

Granted, one must applaud the passion, the drive & the idealism of the dedicated TFA participants, but I doubt if their noble & laudatory services, will succeed in making a serious dent to the dismal state of disarray, prevailing in the public school system there.

What Klein & his ilk need to concertedly address & confront, is the root cause of the ongoing & progressive fall in the educational standards, all across the country, for decades on end. This, rather than effetely prescribing band aid solutions - like TFA projects, which only scratch the surface of the systemic malaise prevelent in acadamia - can realisticly hope cure the problem.

Inorder to tackle that, they have to research all the associated avenues, be it societal, community/family-based, teacher/union-linked...what-have-you, before any real headway can be achieved.

It's high time the Economist took a forthright stand, rather than being just a mouth-speak to vested interest lobbies. Merely pandering to the powers-that-be, may boost your bottom line, but does little to salvage your reputation or stature, among your patrons or readers...

Urgsmurgs' comments completely miss the aim of Teach For America. As a graduating senior this year, I will be joining TFA in the fall teaching middle school math in Kansas City. It seems that TFA tends to rile up passionate opinions on both ends of the spectrum in evaluating its legitimacy, and while the reasons for disagreement are many, I'll only address the specific issue Urgsmurgs brings up in their post.

Their post creates a false dichotomy when looking at inner-city students' situation. Urgsmurgs' post assumes these students must either choose between experienced teachers with years in the field or the neophytes from TFA. The simple truth is these students suffer from districts plagued with decades of high turnover rates and, despite the school's best intentions, teachers that can't deliver in the ways these students need. What TFA does is recruit the future leaders of our country that exhibit a passion to make this situation better and arms them with training from experienced teachers and administrators while also creating a collegial environment where fellow corps members work with one another to overcome their obstacles.

You're right if you're skeptical that after their service TFA alums leave the classroom; most do, but that's not the point. In the short run, a new and larger corps class is created each year to further tackle education inequality, and in the long run TFA alums assume positions of power in all types of fields to leverage for each child to have a great education.

This isn't about altruism or padding my resume. It's about giving my students next year a chance to see their potential and realize success.

Furthermore, this article is a bit like discussing the pros and cons of various deck-chairs on the Titanic. Mayoral control of the school system expires in just a couple of months. Should its continuance be defeated --which it distinctly MAY-- all this will amount to nothing.

The Economist, of course, will surely write a professional eulogy for Mr. Klein, under some such heading as "He Tried, He Failed, He Left"-- blaming everything on other parties, needless to say, than the Chancellor's and Mayor's offices. I await the 2nd or 3rd issue in July...

Yet another disappointing and superficial article from the Economist that leaves me feeling short-changed. So these superstar teachers are different. Where's the detail? HOW are they different? WHAT do they do that's different? WHAT impact is it having on mainstream practice and teacher training? WHY isn't the program more widespread? WHAT are the downsides?

An increasing number of articles, especially here on line, are drifting into this surface-skimming style. Sharpen up, please!

For 'urgsmurgs' and others.
I was lucky to spend 3 years in the 'top class' of a small private and inexpensive school 1944-47. The facilities were primitive, there were about 30 of us boys covering 3 'year-groups' in a wooden classroom which was lined with asbestos panels, some broken. The Headmaster who owned the school had a degree but had had no teacher training. He taught all the subjects then required for 'Commom Entrance' exam, with the exception of Latin. That exam was stiffer than the present day GCSE. He was an inspired and inspiring teacher who worked and taught in an unmethodical way which suited him and us. I do not think he would have been any better had he gone through teacher training college or had been forced to deliver SATS or follow a National Curriculum.
I am full of admiration for the work described in the article and regret the sneers it has attracted.

Urgsmurgs. You appear to state, "only teachers who have 'expired' are qualified to teach" Perhaps you meant 'experience'? If you really meant the former we must await resurrection; if the latter, we must give them a failing grade. I regret that most have one year's experience multiple times rather than multiple years experience once.

Marvelous story. Most important in any writing of NYC schools is the forceful, negative activity of the UFT (United Federation of Teachers) and the incredible damage their leader, Randy Weingarten, has done to sabotage the future of untold tens of thousands of NYC and New York State students. Their consistent battle against charter schools, merit pay for teachers,students' graded performance in evaluating teacher performance for tenure and the unsustainable cost of pension funds is truly criminal---with no penalty. This occurs due to the Union's unobstructed control of city council members and the NY State legislature. Please write about this.

Yes always good to throw unqualified people without practical expirience if any teaching training at all onto those students that need qualified teachers the most. Let them train and ruin a couple of lifes in meantime, before they can move on to expensive private schools :-(. And they even get pseudo altrusitic credits for it.

I find The Economist's ever-recurrent, laudatory prejudice in favor Chancellor Klein ASTOUNDING! Let's face it: the man is a puppet, whose strings are tugged tight straight dwon from our Mayor's office, and a stooge. He has NO independence, NO mind of his own, and a demonstrable, TOTAL ignorance of matters educational. His every move seems to lead to disaster. All his years as chancellor, I have found NO parent (like myself), teacher, or school administrator who had a favorable opinion of Mr. Klein.

So... why on earth is The Economist CONTINUING to lavish such praise on such a scandalously undeserving minion? Is it his past service in the business world? Perhaps, but that is of course totally irrelevant. I am no conspiracy-theorist, but one is tempted to imagine that this publication is on the money-line of New York's Department of Education. Sad. Uninformed. Worse yet, disgraceful.